4.6 Article

Cross-Receiver Radio Frequency Fingerprint Identification Based on Contrastive Learning and Subdomain Adaptation

Journal

IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS
Volume 30, Issue -, Pages 70-74

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LSP.2023.3241592

Keywords

Receivers; Feature extraction; Adaptation models; Signal to noise ratio; Training; Signal processing algorithms; Degradation; Radio frequency fingerprint; cross-receiver; contrastive learning; subdomain adaptation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radio frequency fingerprint (RFF) identification is a promising approach for physical layer security. However, current deep learning (DL) based schemes often suffer from performance degradation in cross-receiver scenarios. To address this issue, a cross-receiver RFF learning scheme is proposed, which utilizes unsupervised pre-training and subdomain adaptation to enhance identification performance. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed scheme effectively mitigates the performance degradation in cross-receiver scenarios.
Radio frequency fingerprint (RFF) identification is emerging as an attractive paradigm for physical layer security. Despite the exceptional accuracy achieved by deep learning (DL) based schemes, few works consider the cross-receiver scenario. The performance deteriorates significantly when the model is deployed on new receivers directly. To this end, a cross-receiver RFF learning scheme is proposed. First, an unsupervised pre-training method based on contrastive learning is utilized to extract receiver-agnostic features. Then, the model is optimized by subdomain adaptation to further improve identification performance. The proposed scheme does not require multiple labeled datasets from different receivers. And experimental results indicate that the proposed scheme effectively alleviates performance degradation in the cross-receiver scenario.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available